Rogers v. Wm. Rogers Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 December 1895 |
| Citation | 70 F. 1019 |
| Parties | ROGERS v. WM. ROGERS MANUF'G CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Wm. C Beecher, for appellant.
Chas E. Mitchell and Hiram R. Mills, for appellee.
Before WALLACE and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.
William A. Rogers has sold for a number of years, in the city of New York, small hardware and cheap spoons. In July, 1894, he engaged R. Wallace & Sons Manufacturing Company, a manufacturer of silver-plated ware, to make for him and prepare for market teaspoons, tablespoons, and forks plated upon steel. They were put up in boxes of the ordinary size and shape used for similar ware, which were labeled, 'Wm A. Rogers, N.Y.,' and the stamp 'Wm. A. Rogers' was upon the back of each article. They were called 'Brunswick,' and were the cheapest known grade of silver-plated ware. The manufacturer made and sold the same grade of goods at a very cheap price under the name of 'Victoria.' The defendant sold the Brunswick at a low price, but higher than the manufacturer asked for his Victoria, and for one-fourth or one-fifth of the price which the complainant obtains for its genuine Rogers goods. In October, 1894, Rogers stopped the manufacture of Brunswick goods, because they were too poor and obtained goods which he named 'Belmont,' which were also of a low grade, but of a better quality than the Brunswick, and were labeled and stamped in the same way. There are indications in the affidavits that he was trading upon his own name to deceive the public. For example, in one of his letters, which gave his prices, and solicited business, he says, 'These prices way below any of the Rogers now on the market, and you will find them, at these prices, big sellers. ' In another letter of the same kind he says, 'Prices way below any Rogers goods on the market. ' On the other hand, he said in another letter, 'In regard to saying they are as good as the other Wm. Rogers, I cannot say that, as neither is the price. ' He undoubtedly knew that the stamp could and would be used by dishonest peddlers and dealers in cheap ware to deceive customers, but the affidavits do not afford sufficient basis for a finding that he started in the business and used the stamp for the purpose of making the public believe that his washed-steel Brunswick goods were genuine Rogers goods. There are some indicia of an unworthy purpose to gain an advantage from a name well known to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Trading Co v. Heacock Co Wm Rogers v. Same
... ... Their ware soon acquired a high reputation. In 1865, Wm. Rogers, one of the brothers, organized a corporation known as the Wm. Rogers Manufacturing Company which used on its silver-plated ware the trade-marks '1865 Wm. Rogers Mfg. Co.' and 'Wm. Rogers & Son.' Two other corporations also acquired from one or more of the brothers the right to the use of the name Rogers, and the wares of these concerns were known by the public as 'Rogers.' In 1898, the International Silver Company was organized and became the owner of the ... ...
-
Hiram Walker & Sons v. Grubman
... ... The mere possibility of fraudulent use is of course ... not enough to prevent all sales ( Rogers v. Wm. Rogers ... Manufacturing Co., 70 F. 1019, 17 C.C.A. 575 (C.C.A. 2d ... Cir.)), yet if the ... ...
-
Von Faber v. Faber
... ... Merrick Thread ... Co., 149 U.S. 562, 13 Sup.Ct. 966, 37 L.Ed. 847; ... Singer Mfg. Co. v. June Mfg. Co., 163 U.S. 169, 16 ... Sup.Ct. 1002, 41 L.Ed. 118 ... This ... calculated to confuse and mislead the public, etc ... In ... R. W. Rogers Co. et al. v. William Rogers Manufacturing ... Co., 70 F. 1017, 17 C.C.A. 576, the headnote is: ... ...
-
Andrew Jergens Co. v. Bonded Products Corporation
...name, which manufactures a high class of goods, does not justify an injunction against the use of such stamp." Rogers v. William Rogers Co., 70 F. 1019, 17 C. C. A. 575. The court should be most cautious not to interfere, without proper cause, in business ventures between individuals, and t......